How they closed the
Claremorris-Limerick railway

That Dáil Éireann, believing that for
social and economic reasons, the Claremorris/Limerick
railway passenger service should not be discontinued, calls
on the Government to ensure that the passenger and freight
service on this line be improved immediately so as to
attract more business.

This is the biggest railway closure in the history of
CIE. The major argument against its closure is that it is by
far the longest line ever proposed for withdrawal of a
passenger train. Limerick to Athenry and to Claremorris is
93 miles. The previous longest passenger lines closed were
Mallow to Waterford, which was 76 miles, in 1967, Limerick
to Tralee, 70 miles, closed in 1963.

More serious still is the fact that whereas CIE gave 13
months' notice of closure in the case of the
Mallow-Waterford line, six months' notice of closure for the
Cork-Bantry line, which was 58 miles long, and four months'
notice of closure in respect of the West Clare railway, they
now give a bare two months' notice, the shortest ever, for
the closure of the largest and most important line to date,
namely, Limerick-Claremorris, which is all they are required
to give.

This is a gross injustice and CIE should be required, as
an absolute minimum concession, to postpone the closure for
at least six months so that adequate time can be made
available to work out a solution to the problem between the
various interests involved and there are many interests.
This six-month period would cover the summer months and the
Easter holiday period. The extra loss incurred would be very
small for such a postponement of the closure, since most of
the £250,000 loss that CIE are talking about must
surely take place during the winter and spring months when
passenger travel on this line would be very light compared
to the summer period.

This is the only line now connecting Munster directly
with Connacht. It stretches from Limerick to Mayo and runs
through four counties, namely, Limerick, Clare, Galway and
Mayo. On the way it serves the very important towns of Ennis
and Tuam and also the growing town of Gort and the rail
junction town of Athenry. Main rail connections are also
made at Limerick, Athenry and Claremorris, so this line is
of strategic importance for all holiday travellers in the
west. If this passenger service is withdrawn, the CIE rail
network will cease in the area west of the Shannon, since
the only lines remaining will be those radiating directly
from Dublin to the west.

This closure, by the way, is not included in the CIE Rail
Plan 80 of which we have all heard about. We wonder if CIE
have defied their own five-year plan that they have
published for some time. I will give three excerpts from
this plan which was published in 1974 and which indicated
that CIE had no intention of closing any long-distance
passenger service. The first excerpt is:

Where passenger services are uneconomic they will
continue to be provided so long as the Government considers
they are socially justified.

Surely the Government cannot deny this service is
socially justified. If it is not economically viable, it is
socially justified. Here is another excerpt:

For passenger traffic route mileage will be virtually
unaltered.

The third one is:

Any decision to withdraw a passenger service from a
station or branch line will only be taken against the
background of EEC policies. These policies dealing with
public service obligations provide for the subvention of
uneconomic but socially desirable passenger services.

All this makes one wonder if the CIE rail section have
been forced by the more powerful bus section to sacrifice
their service in order to make way for more expressway bus
expansion in the west. I would also like to point out that
the McKenzie Report suggested the closure of the
Limerick-Ballina train service and also the abolition of
duplicate rail routes. Yet CIE are only planning to close
the Limerick-Claremorris line and have no intention or no
declared intention of interfering with duplicate routes
because these, as I have already said, radiate from Dublin
to Athlone via Mullingar and via Tullamore. There is one to
Limerick via Thurles, and one via Nenagh and another one to
Waterford-Rosslare via Kilkenny, and a second one via Arklow
to the same destination. There is no suitable alternative
rail route in place of the Limerick-Claremorris line. The
only other route within the two points mentioned, Limerick
and Claremorris, is via Limerick Junction, Portarlington and
Athlone, a total distance of 185 miles, which is twice the
distance of the line from Limerick to Claremorris. It is not
and should not be regarded as an alternative in this
case.

In regard to the £250,000 loss on this line which
has been mentioned by CIE, we consider this figure is
suspect. An even figure of £250,000 will always look
good in print. How do we know that is the correct figure?
For instance, if they had mentioned £249,000 or
£251,000, it would have sounded more convincing. We
would like to know if this is the total loss on the line or
on the passenger trains only. This question should be
answered. What were the receipts and expenses? None of these
questions has been answered by CIE or anybody else. Is the
figure of £250,000 a gross exaggeration?

At a recent press conference on fare increases the
chairman of CIE said that labour costs represent 63 per cent
of the total costs in CIE. In the case of the
Limerick-Claremorris line there are 30 men employed in the
operation of the passenger service and 21 of these men will
now become redundant. Their average wage is £2,000 per
annum, which gives a total of £60,000 for labour costs.
If the chairman's statement is correct, this would mean that
the total cost of running the Limerick-Claremorris passenger
train cannot exceed £100,000, a big drop from
£250,000. How did they arrive at £250,000? I hope
the Minister will be able to clear up that point.

In view of these facts we maintain that all the CIE
figures in regard to this line should be independently
audited before they can be accepted as accurate. This is not
too much to expect. We also maintain that an investigation
into how CIE apportion their losses on various lines should
be carried out. It would be interesting to find out how
costs are apportioned to this specific line because we are
certain that if proper overheads were apportioned the costs
could be further reduced.

In assessing the importance of this line the following
facts should be taken into account. The present cost of
maintaining a mile of national primary road is approximately
£2,000, without surface dressing. The present cost of
reconstructing one mile of national primary road is
£70,000. CIE propose to provide alternative services by
means of further road transport, expressway buses and so on.
We also maintain that the bus substitute proposed would be
totally inadequate, apart from the fact that the substitute
buses are inferior to the trains in question in the required
standard of comfort which passengers are entitled to expect.
For instance, the buses do not serve Craughwell, Athenry or
Ballyglunin. Instead, they continue on the main road into
and out of Galway city. Travellers from Limerick to Tuam and
Claremorris do not want to go via Galway; neither do they
want to be held up in deep traffic jams, which usually occur
in cities such as Galway. Similarly, travellers from Ennis
and Gort for Dublin, who now travel by rail via Athenry,
will have to go into Galway by bus to connect with the
Dublin trains. CIE are using the rail closure as an excuse
to augment the Limerick-Galway bus route and merely extend
two of these services each way to Claremorris. During heavy
summer holiday periods these buses will be crammed with
passengers and Salthill and Mayo-bound passengers will have
to stand all the way to Galway, or perhaps they will be left
behind in Limerick or Ennis.

Under the 1958 Transport Act CIE have absolute power,
without reference to any Government or person, to close any
line or station provided it is not [536] paying and
has no prospect of paying. We do not know which lines are
paying and which are not. Under the existing law CIE could
close the whole rail system by giving the minimum two
months' notice if they so desired. We believe the company
should not be permitted to do so, nor should they be
permitted to close this line.

In Britain, for instance, no line can be closed without a
public inquiry, which would be held by the Transport Users'
Consultative Committee. This has always been the case in
Britain. I am not saying we should do everything the British
do, but there are certain instances when we could have a
system similar to theirs. When a line is threatened British
Rail and the objectors give evidence for and against and the
committee then issue their findings. In may cases the
closure is rejected and the line remains open. Even in cases
where the committee allow a line to close the Minister for
Transport has authority to veto such a decision or can order
any threatened line to remain open.

He has done this on a number of occasions, notably in the
case of the central Wales line, which is a cross-country
route similar in length to the Limerick-Claremorris line. He
stopped the closure of this line in 1964 when the line was
losing £100,000 per annum. In 1969, when the loss had
grown to £250,000 per annum, he again stopped the
closure. The line is still open to passengers and is run
very cheaply with small two-coach railcar trains. Maybe CIE
should consider copying this system in an effort to run this
line more cheaply and to maintain the service through the
west. As both Britain and Ireland are now members of the EEC
the same transport legislation should recommend itself to
both countries, especially when the system is not
dissimilar, particularly in places like Wales and
Scotland.

CIE are trying to justify this closure by giving
comparative costs for new trains and new buses. Nobody asks
them to buy new trains because the trains already exist.
Engines and carriages on this line are quite new and have a
life expectancy of at least another ten years. The people of
Ennis and Tuam and elsewhere in the west are not looking for
super trains and they have never requested any improvement
in the trains that are operating on this line.

CIE have confirmed that if they withdraw the train
service they will need four new express buses in order to
provide a service and that will cost a total of
£100,000. CIE say that the buses will serve the town
centres. Ennis is the only station where this line does not
serve the town centre. Every other station on the Limerick
line is adjacent to the town centre and in the town of Gort
the railway line crosses over the main street, the only town
in Ireland where this happens. The claim that the express
buses would serve the town centres should not be taken
seriously compared with the present rail route that they are
proposing to discontinue.

The Limerick/Claremorris daily train has very comfortable
seating. There is plenty of space to walk around and there
are sanitary facilities. People can eat, drink, or read and
write if they wish. They can also admire the scenery and
hold a conversation with fellow passengers. CIE's
regulations compel them to provide sanitary arrangements on
all train journeys exceeding one-and-a-half hours. Children
and old people would necessarily avail of these facilities
frequently.

By comparison, if travelling in buses, even on an
expressway, they have to do the journey in cramped
conditions with no walk-around space. Reading is virtually
impossible. Conversation is rarely possible because of the
noise and vibrations. There are no sanitary or washing
facilities, although many journeys on these buses exceed the
one-and-a-half hours prescribed by CIE's health regulations.
Buses have limited luggage space, whereas trains can
accommodate all sorts of baggage which travellers and
holidaymakers require.

Limerick has no rail outlet to the sea except to Galway.
GAA specials operate from Ennis to Tuam during the summer
months and there are very few Sundays when we would not have
a special from either Ennis or Tuam for GAA matches. Of
great importance is the pilgrimages to Knock from Limerick,
Ennis and so on. These specials operate through Munster from
May to October. These specials from the south of Ireland
carry between 300 and 500 passengers each and it is only
right to expect a big increase in that traffic in 1979, the
Knock Centenary Year. Buses could not be expected to cope
with such big numbers. Great hardship would be inflicted on
people travelling even in express buses because of the long
travelling hours through the centre of Ireland.

There is nothing to stop CIE doing what happened in Wales
in the instance I have given. They could use a small rail
car train with a conductor-guard to issue tickets. Since
most of the losses mentioned have been incurred during
winter months, a compromise solution may be the retention of
the full summer service and a reduced winter one, say on
Saturdays only.

If CIE persist in refusing a subsidy -we have subsidies
for them every year and we never opposed them since we came
into Opposition- some system of grants or aids should be
considered. For instance, have the Government made any
recommendation to the EEC with regard to getting grant aid
to keep this line open? We appreciate that it is not
possible to get a grant under the heading of transport but
we believe an application should be made to the social fund
because of the great social function this line serves,
linking the south of Ireland with Connacht through the west.
On a recent visit to Brussels I made an inquiry about this
matter and was told there was a distinct possibility of aid
being granted.

I have no doubt that if application were made for such
aid it would be considered seriously if it were properly
documented and put before the Social Commissioner who, we
should not forget, comes from west of the Shannon. The
postponing of the closure of this line for six months could
be considered and teased out properly. This could lead to a
compromise decision which would satisfy the people who are
so worried about the closure of the line. There are options
open to CIE, the Government and the Minister before closing
the line in April.

We believe all these options should be tried properly and
the only way that can be done is by giving the line a
reprieve for a further six months. CIE cannot lose in the
next six months because that is the period during which the
line pays its way. According to the CIE chairman, losses on
the line are accounted for by labour costs which amount to
63 per cent of the total cost of running the line. The
winter months must be the valley period for this line. Faced
with holidaymakers and Knock pilgrims during the summer and
with GAA specials, surely the line would pay its way in the
next six months.

We should like a breakdown of the losses in winter and
the profits during the summer. There is definitely a case
for extending the life of this line for another six months
with a view to looking at every possible means of keeping it
open. This line would have many other functions in the
future development of the economy, apart from the social
functions which it has at present in the west, and it is
included in all planning for the west. Indeed, we have all
done enough talking about saving the west and setting up all
sorts of bodies to save it. Surely it would be to the
detriment of the west to take away this passenger line, the
only line which is serving the west, apart from the ones
directly radiating from Dublin. The Minister should look
into reprieving this line for six months with a view to
keeping it open.

Bord Fáilte and the IDA include this line in all
their plans. In the event of an oil find off the west coast
this line would have an important function in servicing the
industries which must surely follow such a find. There are
many aspects of our future economic development in which
this line would be directly concerned. There have been many
meetings west of the Shannon in connection with its closure.
I have no doubt that people of all shades of political
opinion have been as one in their determination to prevent
the closure [540] of this line. Quite recently the
Minister saw an instance of this when one of the biggest
deputations ever to come to this House came to meet him.
This deputation included all political shades of opinion.
This is one issue on which people are completely united.
Despite the 1958 Act which, as we have been told, makes it
the sole prerogative of CIE to close the line, we believe
that the Minister should intervene in order to prevent this.
The Minister has a duty to intervene in order to do so. This
is the time to do it. The date set for the closure is 5th
April. We put down this motion in an effort to highlight the
concern and worry which this proposed closure has caused. We
hope the Minister and his colleagues will take note of this
and that some action, belated as it is now, will be taken to
prevent CIE from discontinuing this line which is of such
great importance to the west.

Minister for Transport and Power
(Mr. P. Barry): I move the following
amendment:

To delete all words after "Dáil Éireann"
and to substitute the following:

"recognises that under Section 19 of the Transport Act,
1958 the Board of CIE is empowered to terminate any train
service provided the Board is satisfied that the service is
uneconomic and that there is no prospect of its continued
operation being economic within a reasonable period; and
takes note that the Board propose to provide alternative
road passenger services in lieu of the rail passengers
services on the Limerick/Claremorris railway line."

In moving his motion Deputy Barrett recognised the
validity of section 19 of the 1958 Transport Act. It is the
major Act dealing with CIE and the contraction of CIE to a
viable position as a railway undertaking. We must look at
this motion of the Opposition's and my amendment to it in
the light of what is happening to railways all over the
world. Deputy Barrett quoted British Rail's position and
what they had done. What he did not say was that, per head
of the population, the subsidy being provided by the
[541] taxpayer in England for British Rail is
greater than the subsidy being provided by the Irish
taxpayer for CIE. Nor did he say that since 1st January last
year there have been five fare increases on British Rail.
During that time there has only been one increase in CIE
fares, and we have managed to keep the subsidy at a lower
level per head of the population than have British Rail.

Railway travel for certain commodities and for large
groups of people is a legitimate form of passenger
transport. It is also legitimate for the transfer of large
quantities of heavy goods. I do not think that railways, per
se, should be preserved. They were laid down in different
times for a different economy. They were there long before
the road system was as extensive or as good as it is now.
They were put there at a time when there were no private
cars on the road and they are exceedingly expensive to
maintain.

Mr. Barrett: So are
cars.

Mr. P. Barry: I did
not interrupt Deputy Barrett and I should like to make my
contribution without interruption. When the 1958 Act was
being debated the then Minister for Industry and Commerce,
Mr. Lemass, said:

We cannot afford to be pouring into an unnessary,
inefficient and unduly wasteful transport system money that
could be devoted to far more useful purposes.

This was the thinking that prompted that Act and the
closures which have taken place under that Act since then.
It is wrong to oppose the closing of the
Claremorris/Limerick line when there is a long history of
other closures completely cutting off from rail transport
other parts of the country, and I speak of west Cork, Kerry,
Donegal, Monaghan, Cavan, Dundalk and Greenore. All these
lines have been closed since that Act was brought in. The
difference, however, is that the tracks of the lines which
have been closed in the last three years have not been taken
up. The tracks will remain; and if there is a change in the
economic circumstances surrounding any particular closure
the bed of the track is still [542] there. Another
one-and it would be a relief to the transport system in the
city of Dublin if it was possible to run it again-is the
Harcourt Street line. When the Harcourt Street-Bray line was
closed the line was taken up and the land sold, so there is
no possibility of connecting the southern suburbs of Dublin
to the centre of Dublin by rail. Where other lines have been
closed in the last three years, it was deliberately as a
result of the Government giving instructions to CIE that, if
they saw no future in a line becoming economic, while it was
within their competence to close that line, they should not
take up the tracks in case there was a change in the
economic circumstances in the future and it was necessary to
reopen that line. Portion of the Mallow/Waterford line had
to be reopened to carry goods for a new industry in
Dungarvan.

Some other speakers referred to the large deputation
which I received early this month. That deputation-and this
morning I read over the notes taken at that meeting-was
largely concerned about freight, about the fear that the
cessation of the passenger service was a prelude to the
cessation of the freight service. That might well be,
because the reason for stopping the passenger service was
lack of support for it. If it had been supported it would
have stayed. Less than the equivalent of one busload of
people travelled every day on that train. For 70 per cent of
the time one bus would have done, and yet for that a
permanent way, engines, staff and very expensive rolling
stock had to be provided. You could not justify that. The
same would happen in freight.

There were people picketing outside Dáil
Éireann today. These people would be better occupied
organising sufficient freight traffic for that line than in
picketing Dáil Éireann. Unless there is, the
freight would have to go also because the freight carriage
on that line is of benefit to the people living in the towns
along it, the traders and the commercial people living in
the towns from Limerick to Claremorris. It is of benefit to
them, not to the taxpayers of Donegal, Wicklow, Wexford or
Tipperary. It is unreasonable, if the losses are too heavy,
to ask other taxpayers to keep that line open. I give fair
warning to the House that if, instead of organising
meetings, parades and pickets for the last month or two
since notice of the closure was given, they had been
organising trade for CIE and behaving in a positive way to
help maintain that line for freight they would have been far
better occupied than in the negative way of opposing
something which I know a lot of them in their own hearts
know is inevitable. You cannot justify asking the taxpayers
to maintain a line that is carrying for 70 per cent of its
time less than one busload of people. It is not reasonable,
and I suspect that the Deputies who will speak here, even
though they speak in favour of the line because they think
it is politically wise to do so, know themselves it is
unreasonable. Even amongst themselves I suspect, in the
privacy of the third floor they will admit that is so. This
line is losing a quarter of a million pounds on the
passenger service alone.

I want to correct two points Deputy Barrett made. The
special trains to Knock are being maintained. He said the
GAA special trains from Ennis to Tuam--

Mr. Barrett: And
Tuam.

Mr. P. Barry: Well, I
presume they are going to Dublin. I do not know when Clare
play Galway or in what competition. Clare play in the
Munster championships and Galway play in the Connaught
championships. There are occasional Oireachtas games or
grounds tournaments. Maybe they play in the league, but I do
not think so.

Mr. Barrett:
Hurling.

Mr. P. Barry: I do
not remember Galway and Clare meeting in the GAA.

Mr. Barrett: They do
not play in Tuam.

Mr. P. Barry: Anyway,
I suppose Deputy Barrett is entitled to say anything he
thinks might fit the bill, but I imagine that the Clare
people would be going to Thurles, to Cork and to Dublin from
Ennis.

Mr. Barrett: They go
everywhere.

Mr. P. Barry: They do
when they have the chance. They will have the chance of
going everywhere with the express bus service, because what
they could not do on the train was to get off in Galway city
and go to Salthill. The train did not go through Galway
city. The express bus will, and will give them that
chance.

When I became Minister for Transport and Power in 1973 I
found that my predecessors in this office had this problem
and, prior to them, the Minister for Industry and Commerce.
One of the perennial headaches for the Minister for
Transport and Power is Córas Iompair Éireann
in all its manifestations and ramifications, its huge
losses, its enormous staff. It is a constant presence in the
office of the Minister for Transport and Power.

Deputy Barrett says people got only two-months' notice of
the closure of this line, but he says at another point that
the closure was foreshadowed by the McKinsey Report, and
that is true. It was obvious that something would have to be
done with CIE, because if it was allowed to continue
amassing huge losses without any effort to make it a more
efficient organisation, to curtail it and make it an
efficient, modern transport system, the whole railway side
of CIE would close down. It was the only possible end to the
way in which it was going. I accepted at that stage the
McKinsey Report recommendation that CIE should be cut back,
that under the 1958 Act the board should be allowed continue
with their freedom to shut down uneconomic lines, to close
stations which were under-utilised, and that they should get
capital investment of a kind that would allow them compete
for the freight traffic which they were losing very heavily
to the private sector.

Members listening to me have come to me on occasions, and
two members of that deputation who are not Deputies have
been with me on another deputation, saying that it is unfair
to the private sector that CIE should have an apparent
monopoly in freight transport, and that it was my duty as
Minister for Transport and Power to introduce legislation to
liberalise road freight and allow more people from the
private sector in on top of the goods being carried by
CIE.

I circulated that Bill last week at the behest of some
Deputies and two people, not Deputies, who were on that
deputation to me in Room 114. These are the people who want
to be allowed to take the trade from CIE but still want the
general body of taxpayers to support CIE and keep CIE
running to all sorts of places at all sorts of times in case
they might ever need them. They cannot have it both ways. If
people want CIE they must accept the curtailment of their
freedom if they are in the private sector, and they must
accept the taxes that are going to be imposed to support
CIE. They must not shout for unlimited money for CIE to
operate uneconomic services at uneconomic times for people
who are unwilling to support the services. That is the
surest possible way to stick a knife in the heart of CIE and
kill it for ever, to take railways out of this country.

I do not believe that railways are necessarily obsolete,
that their day is ended, that it ended with the growth of
the internal combustion engine. They still have a function
to play in carrying large bodies of people and certain
goods. However, it must be recognised that if they are to do
this they must be supported. In Volume 186 of the Official
Report, columns 605 and 606, the then Taoiseach, Deputy
Seán Lemass, said:

We have closed many a railway and branch line since this
State was established. We closed the line from Galway to
Clifden; we eliminated railways in Donegal altogether; and
we closed the line from Dundalk to Greenore and numerous
other ones. There never was a line closed without public
agitation of this sort about it...

He was speaking about the same sort of agitation as was
outside the Dáil today.

As a matter of interest for the House, at the time one
line was closed one Deputy made a point of getting himself
ejected from this House in defence of the line which was
being closed. He lost his seat in the next election.

Mr. Lemass went on to say: ... but there never was a
serious complaint about the inadequacy of the substitute
services once the line was closed.

I met many deputations, whatever CIE may do.

There was a controversy at the time that CIE were
refusing to meet deputations of people who came to them. The
then chairman of CIE refused to meet any deputation
protesting about the closing of the lines. He said he would
meet them on the inadequacy of the alternative service being
supplied. It might be interesting to inquire as to who the
chairman of CIE was at that time. He then went on: with
regard to the closing of a railway line which required the
positive consent of the Government and in no single case,
going around the traders and councillors who made up the
deputations, could I get an affirmative answer to the only
question that mattered: "If the line is kept open, can you
get more traffic for it?" I never got an affirmative answer
to that question and it is the only one that counted.

In the final analysis Deputy Lemass was correct in that.
CIE, like any trader, the smallest shopkeeper or the biggest
firm, if they have not support the inevitable will happen;
they must close. That is why CIE have adopted a new attitude
in the past few years- they know that their handling of the
sundries traffic in particular had been inefficient and was
losing them trade very quickly.

Much of the money used by CIE in a capital sense in the
last 12 months has been spent in the west. The policy about
the west is not as has been alleged here and by the
deputation I met and many other deputations, that CIE were
going to abandon the railways in the west. That is not so
but they are going to make sure that fast, efficient
transport will operate in the west for both freight and
passengers. Freight is an important to CIE as passengers.
They have spent over £600,000 in the last two years on
stations in the west of Ireland. If they can get their
freight handling system into a modern context so as to
handle it in a modern way and in palletised cages rather
than in single boxes, on and off lorries, on and off
carriages, off carriages again and onto lorries, so much the
better. The amount of handling is enormous and represents an
old-fashioned way of handling goods which is no longer
acceptable to those traders who are now shouting to keep the
line open. They will not support CIE themselves because the
CIE method of handling sundries was too inefficient and old
fashioned. CIE are making a capital investment to ensure
that they do win back some of the trade they were losing to
the private sector. I do not intend that on the road freight
side CIE should be subsidised. I agree with those on the
deputation that came to me saying that they were, perhaps,
over-protected in the amount of trade they were taking. I do
not intend that they be subsidised on road freight; they
must compete with the ordinary hauliers who put their money
into lorries, and employ men. They must compete on an equal
basis and must have no advantage from the Government in this
regard.

On the railways, however, they must be subsidised and the
subsidy for 1976 will be over £20 million. Much could
be done for the private motorist with that money; relief
could be given in income tax and many other things could be
done with that kind of money but it is being given to CIE
because the Government recognise that the future of CIE is
essential to the future of the west and the south because it
is the main artery, the main connecting link between the
capital and the east coast and the south. CIE's policy,
taking a complete sweep of the country from Wicklow through
Waterford, Cork, Kerry, up around to Sligo and Donegal, is
to have a radial system from Dublin so that the time it will
[548] take a person to travel from, say, Galway or
Tuam to Dublin will be shorter and the journey safer and
more efficient and more acceptable to the passengers than
their own cars or the roadway.

How real is the tourist value of the Limerick/Claremorris
line? We are now told that Cork city will be cut off from
the west and that this was a natural method of travelling
from Claremorris to Cork and that if people wanted to get on
the Innisfallen to go to London from Claremorris they would
get on this train which would take them to Limerick; they
would change trains and go to Limerick Junction where they
would again change trains and go to Cork city; then they
would get on a bus in Cork which would take them to the
ferry port. Every single day there is an expressway bus put
on from Claremorris by CIE and you can get on that bus and
you need not get off until you land on the Innis-fallen. You
can go right through to the car ferry from Cork to Swansea
without getting off that bus.

Mr. Molloy: Is there
a toilet on the bus?

Mr. P. Barry: No, but
the bus stops regularly and the times between stops are much
less than those given by Deputy Barrett. That is a far more
efficient service with one handling of luggage between
Claremorris and the Cork ferry port as opposed to
Claremorris/Limerick/Limerick Junction/ Cork. That is what
old people particularly want. They do not wish to cross town
with bags under their arms, carrying parcels and so on. They
want to use one mode of transport from one point to their
destination. That is the service that the new expressway bus
service provides from Claremorris to Cork.

I suppose there is a certain pride in having a railway in
one's own town -it was always there and you do not like to
see it go. But is it the most efficient way of handling
goods and people in this age? You must go to a railway
station while a bus generally stops in the main street or
other centre with the exception of Galway station, which I
suppose, of all the cities in Europe, is the best situated,
right in the heart of the city.

I do not see any great benefit in a a railway per se
except for handling certain types and quantities of goods.
By and large, road transport is more efficient and cheaper.
The permanent way for road transport is used by a whole
series of people who share the cost of its upkeep but the
permanent way for rail traffic, either goods or passengers,
is used by one set of people who are charged with its
upkeep. The upkeep of a permanent way now is enormous and
the cost of supplying engines and rolling stock for railways
is enormous. If the passengers who use it are not willing to
pay the price-and they are not and the Government recognise
they would be unable to do so-then the Government must
provide a subvention to help in the maintenance of these
railways. I do not know how many members of the public -
outside groups of traders or commercial groups or action
groups or development groups, where the action began and the
flame was lit which led to the sending of a deputation to
the Minister to protest about the closing of the
Claremorris-Limerick line - in any one of the towns or
cities from Galway to Limerick stopped any Deputy and said:
"This line should not be closed." Can any Deputy say that he
was stopped by some individual in the street who said: "I
always use the Limerick-Claremorris line; it should not be
closed"?